john barleycorn: Capablanca who gave this game in his "Chess Fundamentals" did not mention psychology. In fact, he give lines where he could have played better and charges his loss too his weak play and at one point his ambition to win the game.
Ever since Reti brought up the "psychological" aspect in Lasker's play it is repeated endlessly. Robert Hübner in an article would also claim that the saga of Lasker's psychological play is greatly exaggerated.

shallowred: There is no doubt that Lasker applied psychology... to himself! We all know the thoughts that go on in our head during a game. "I'm winning!" or "I'm done." I believe Lasker battled those conceptions as much as he fought his opponent OTB. I have been studying Lasker's annotations for the St. Petersburg 1909 tournament book for a couple of years. People say that Lasker was hard to learn from; but I am starting to believe that he told us everything we need to know.

<1. Lasker must have had virtually no knowledge of Capablanca before this tournament.>

Well, I would strongly disagree with that. Not only had he known him personally for nearly a decade, they'd engaged in failed negotiations for a title match (as a result, they were not on speaking terms when this game was played) and Lasker had annotated many of his games. Karpova has posted some of his writings about Capablanca. Generally world champions make it their business to know about their challengers.

<2. Before this famous game they had 2 hard fought draws. By this 3rd game Lasker knew, that Capa was a tough opponent - and that he had to be as carefull as ever. This would explain his use of a drawish opening.>

Lasker didn't play the EV all that often, but he had an unbelievable winning % with it. He'd beaten Steinitz, Tarrasch, Janowski, and Chigorin with it before this game. You're right, though, there's no way to describe the position after the queens came off as anything other than drawish.

<I find it hard to believe, that he could plan on using any psychological approach to his games against Capa.>

I agree with your conclusion, because I don't think he used a psychological approach in general.

<3. Lasker had much of his chess upbringing in cafes, where an error would mean no meal that day. This was - if any - his basic approach to the game in general - and certainly against strong opponents.>

keypusher: <Capa was Black in an Exchange Lopez and Hooper and Brandeth state this game would have been known to Lasker and;>

Very interesting, I did not know that.

Also, one more bit of backdrop: Capablanca later wrote that he should have sacrificed the exchange at some point with ...Rxe6. Probably he should have, but see Alekhine vs Lasker, 1914 from the previous round. Wouldn't make you eager to play an ending the exchange down against Lasker, would it?

Domdaniel: <Sally S> -- Don't give up so easily. I understand that you've been frustrated by CG's failure to respond to previous corrections etc, but submitted games will eventually find their way to the database. In my experience, at any rate.

Not frustrated, disappointed, though I suppose they have to check these things (especially from me as I have a history of having a screw loose.)

But in terms of exact moves and who played what games and married players having two sets of DB's I'll play my part and do my bit. No nonsense from me there. The game is sacred.
_______________________________________________

However.....

Do you want to know how the Giuoco Piano (the quiet game) got it's name?

I had a brief flirtation with 1.d4 in the early 80's when the good players were trying to get me sorted out positionally and I although got on OK winning some nice games.
(big Marshall fan who played 1.d4 so I had inkling of what to do.) Infact I can only recall losing one.

I went back to 1.e4 because 'It's best Test - Fischer sez.' and my f1 Bishop was moaning about that White pawn on c4.

(Now I play a delayed exchange on c6 in the Lopez and the f1 Bishop moans even more. I just cannot win.)

Domdaniel: <Sally S.> -- < my f1 Bishop was moaning about that White pawn on c4. >
Heh. My theory is that Bishops should learn to be patient -- even in the French, the c8 Bish eventually comes into its own.

BTW, I haven't played either 1.d4 *or* 1.e4 for years ... just 1.Nf3 and 1.c4, and occasional abominations like 1.e3. Fischer may have said 1.e4 was best by test - I say if it's good on the 1st move then it's even better on the 25th.

One day Giuoco sprang his opening on Bernardo and won a brilliant game
“That was quite a game.” said Bernardo and so the name ‘The Quiet Game’ stuck.

Ha! Soooo untrue but very very funny. I much doubt they spoke to each other in English while playing chess. But if the story were true, then for centuries we've called the opening the wrong name. It's the "Bel Gioco".

che era un bel gioco=that was quite a game.

I'm calling it that from now on. Behold! I am SirChrislov! The chess opening name decider!

Poulsen: <keypusher><Well, I would strongly disagree with that. Not only had he known him personally for nearly a decade, they'd engaged in failed negotiations for a title match (as a result, they were not on speaking terms when this game was played) and Lasker had annotated many of his games>

Thank you for pointing this out - something I overlooked. I also overlooked, that they already had meet before - in the 1906 rapid tournament.

So Lasker must have known quite a bit about Capablanca by their meeting. After all Capablanca was a guy, who was bound to make a lasting impression on anyone that meet him. Just like the present WCh he was a star long before actually becoming WCh.

Never the less I still do not think, that Lasker would be in a position to play psychological against Capa.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.